The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-06-23
NATIONAL NEWS.

tClRu6u.l JOliN Il.
Governor of Kansas.
NATIONAL NEWS.
ORDER RESCINDED.
WASHINGTON, June 15.-The Score.
tary of the Interior has rescinded his
order of March 26, 1886 withdrawing
from the operation of the public land
laws fractional range Al in the State
of Colorado for the purpose of a nation
al trade.
REVERSED BY LAMAR.
Secretary Lamar to-day in decision
on the application of John @. Robin
son, as owner, to relocate Bacca claim
No. in the Territory of New Mexico,
has reversed the decision of Acting
Commissioner Harrison March u, 1886,
rejecting the location, because of the
mineral character of the land and au-
thorizing a relocation. He holds,
however, that under the principles laid
down in the Gilpin decision made by
Commissioner Williamson, which he
affirms, the claimant is entitled to the
location of the land made in June,
1853, as amended in 1916, for the rea-
son that at that date it had been de-
cided to be non-mineral in character
and the subsequent discovery of
mineral, he holds, cannot defeat the title
to such lands. The secretary also says
that if the Government has disposed of
any part of the lands embraced in said
location by reason of action of the gen.
eral land office, claimants perhaps
might in that event upon proper APP
plication made be allowed to select and
locate other land in lieu thereof, but
as no such facts appear l decline to
pass upon that question. The claim en-
braces an area of nearly 100000 acres.
CATTEn THE DRESTnENIp
WASHINGTON, June 15.-Rear Ad-
miral S. q. Vinges, of the French
navy, accompanied by the French Min
lister, called at the White House to-day,
and was introduced to the President by
Assistant Secretary Porter, of the De-
partment OF State. After short chat
with the President, the Admiral was
shown into the East Room, where he
viewed with much interest the recep-
tion of the general public.
The Interstate Commerce Commits
sion rendered, tonight, the long eX-
pected decision on the 4th section of
the Interstate Commerce act,
which prohibits greater charge
for the transportation of pas
sengers and property over shorter
than over long distances in the same
direction under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions. The
ucClolOu Hlduc pCOlOlOh VI ILC
Louisville u Nashville and other rail-
road companies, which were among the
first to apply for relief under the fourth
section. The law decision is very long,
comprising more than Is, 900 words, but
the most Important feature is the an
nouncement that the Commission does
not undertake to decide in advance
what constitutes, or what don't constl
tute discrimination under substantial
but will leave the railroad companies
in fixing their tariffs, to act upon their
own judgment and at their risk sub
| ject to accountability before the Com
mission and courts on cases where
complaint is made by interested par
ties of violation of the law. For the
guidance, however, of railroad COM
panies, the Commission in its decision
has considered at great length nearly
all the questions raised under the
| fourth section.
THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION.
The rooms set apart by the Inter
State Commission for public hearings
was completely filed to-day with coun
sci, witnesses and other persons inter
ested in the decision of the Commission
upon the complaint of the Chicago
Alton Railway Co. against the Penn
sylvania Railway Co. There was pres
emit President Roberts, and Genera
Counsel Scott and Brooks, of the Penn
sylvania Railway, Mr.; Hayden anS
| Frank Lewis, of the Illinois Central
| Vice President and General Manager
Chapel, Mr.. Charlton, general passen
ger agent, and MesSrs. Oates anC
Brown, counsel for the Chicago 81 AL
ton, and many other persons. Thu
burden of the complaint, as explained Il
the Commission by Mr.. Brown on be
half of the Chicago u Alton is that thu
Pennsylvania Railroad Company apC
the Pennsylvania Company have vic
lated the Interstate law in three par
ticulars. In the first place it is alleged
that the Pennsylvania Company has re
fused to accord to the complainant
equal facilities and advantages will
other roads. In the second place it hai
subjected the complainant to undu
disadvantage. and in the third place i
is charged that the defendants hav
not afforded all reasonable facili
ties for the interchange o
traffic and passengers. Therefor
PENNSYLVANIA Railroad Compan
be required by the Commission to al
ford these facilities. After Mi
Brown had explained the nature of tn
, complaint, Mr.. Scott stated the pos
ton of the Pennsylvania Railroa
Company, giving in detail a history c
the negotiations between the companie
leading up to the refusal to exchang
traffic. BE held that the CommissiO
. must hold as the Supreme Court ha
t held in the case of til
Atichison, Topeka s. Santa Fe VI
z the Denver & New Orleans, that
3 road is not bound to go beyond its ow
. lines for the purpose of making facil
3 ties. The question simply stated wa
: whether it is q reasonable Iegulatio
4 for the Pennsylvania railroad or al
n other company to make; that, in col
o tinuing to sell through tickets to Kal
3 sas City or any other point, it must il
4 sist that officers of the other lines sha
agree that they will not tempt Il
a Pennsylvania officers by the off,
y of commissions. The broad ge
= eral, question is whether the cor
n mission would enable a few lin
to continue a system which can on
result in actual decentralization amor
the officers of other companies. VIII
o. these general statements had be,
40 made there was some discussion |
tween counsel touching the admissi
10 of certain facts by by both sides
to facilitate disposition of the ca
Re In answer to Mr.. Brown, I
he Pennsylvania Railroad Compa